Wednesday, February 1, 2017

So two things happened yesterday as a result of Kevin Williamson's extraordinary rant about so-called 'tactical voting' on Sunday. Firstly, a few people on Twitter commented that there needed to be some sort of 'truce' on the issue with a second indyref potentially on the horizon, and secondly, Williamson just carried on ranting at people, including myself. Having reflected on this quite a bit, what I've decided to do is respond to his latest diatribe (because unsurprisingly he tried to shift the goalposts yet again), and then I'm going to 'mute' both him and another individual on Twitter, and do my utmost never to engage with them on social media again, or at least not this side of Indyref 2. I'm going to do that for my own sanity as much as anything else, because it's basically quite a nasty trolling effort that a number of us have found ourselves on the wrong end of, and the fact that the people responsible for it are leading lights within the pro-indy new media doesn't alter our need to take the basic steps to protect ourselves and to make sure that our quality of life isn't adversely affected by what they're doing. (And, yes, from my own perspective it really is getting to that stage.)

If we strip away all the content-free scorn and mockery from Kevin (his main tactic yesterday was to brush off each and every reasonable point with the bizarre catch-all retort "Dream on, chum, this is Scotland"), the only substantive point he seemed to be making was that it didn't matter that John Curtice has concluded that tactical voting cost the SNP their overall majority, because even if the SNP had reached the magic figure of 65, they would somehow have been magically forced by the unionist parties into putting up one of their own number as Presiding Officer, and would thus have lost the majority straight away and been left in a 64-64 deadlock with the opposition parties. Moreover, he argued that unless we could definitively prove that he was wrong about that, it meant that he wasn't wrong. This in turn meant that he was justified in saying on Sunday that tactical voting did not harm the SNP or cost them their overall majority, and that he was therefore owed an apology for the characterisation of that claim as a Trump-style "alternative fact".

There's just one little tiny snag here - none of this bears any resemblance whatever to the claim Kevin actually made on Sunday, or to what I characterised as an "alternative fact". What he actually claimed was that tactical voting had rescued the pro-independence majority, and that without it we would not currently have the parliamentary arithmetic to call a second independence referendum. Here's a reminder of his exact words -"Vindication! If it wasn't for us lot who called #2ndVoteGreen wouldn't be a maj for #indyref2. Thanks + apologies due to Greens, Bella, et al.""if it wasn't for us indy supporters who split our votes there'd be NO majority for Indyref2""Luckily enough people ignored you otherwise there'd be NO majority for indyref2"

There was no room for ambiguity in those statements. He was not making a restrained and limited argument that tactical voting did not technically cost the SNP their overall majority. He was very specifically asserting that tactical voting was responsible for securing a pro-independence majority. That was a downright lie. I called it out as a lie, and I make no apology whatever for calling it out as a lie. If John Curtice was quoted/paraphrased accurately by the Sunday Herald, his conclusion was that there would have been a 67-62 pro-independence majority if tactical voting had not occurred. Self-evidently, the choice of Presiding Officer would have made no difference to that arithmetic - even if the PO had come from either the SNP or the Greens, there would still have been a 66-62 pro-indy majority.

It's supremely ironic that having been so outraged by the entirely justified "alternative fact" characterisation, Kevin's next step was straight out of the Trump playbook. Instead of admitting that his claim was inaccurate (or coming up with new evidence to establish that it was correct after all), he pretended that he hadn't made the claim in the first place, and that he had actually said something entirely different. Apparently he hopes that no-one is going to notice or double-check. Yes, folks, we are well and truly into "alternative facts" territory here, and we might as well call a spade a spade.

However, let's humour Kevin just for a moment and play along with the charade that he only made the more modest claim that he is now pretending to have made. Is it true that 65 seats wouldn't 'really' have been an SNP majority, and that the SNP would have been forced to put someone forward as Presiding Officer? In a word, no. In that circumstance, the party leadership would have been absolutely determined to ensure that the PO came from the opposition benches, thus preserving their slim majority. Although they wouldn't have been able to literally prevent an SNP MSP from being nominated for the position, it's highly unlikely that would have happened (any ambitious MSP with a credible chance would likely have been offered a government job anyway), but even if it had happened, there would have been no difficulty at all in preventing that person from being elected.

That means Kevin's entire case hinges on the assumption that every single one of the 64 opposition MSPs would have declined to put themselves forward for the job. Frankly, that beggars belief. The opposition benches are full to bursting with ambitious people whose party leaderships wouldn't have been able to buy them off with government positions, or even with the realistic hope of government positions in the medium-to-long term. Of course someone would have come forward. If they hadn't, the result would have been a re-run of the election, and there's no question at all as to who would have received the blame for that. Having held the position of Presiding Officer for two of the previous four parliaments, the onus was scarcely on the SNP to step up to the plate again (and especially not after the open discontent on the Labour benches about not being given their "turn" in 2011 when Tricia Marwick was elected).

It's also worth making the point that even if Kevin is right that the SNP would have acted irrationally by electing one of their own number as Presiding Officer, it would still be categorically untrue for him to claim that the SNP were "not harmed" by tactical voting. Without it, they would not have been reduced to a minority government (64-64 is deadlock rather than a minority), and there would have been a pro-independence Presiding Officer. In two very concrete ways, then, Kevin's wildly implausible scenario would still have left the SNP in a better position than they currently find themselves as a result of the tactical voting debacle.

* * *

OK. What you've just read was my very last response to Kevin or to anyone else from Bella on this subject. If they try to rewrite history yet again (and on past form it seems highly likely they will), I'll just refer people back to this blogpost or to my previous one. I'm now going to mute Kevin on Twitter, and as an extra precaution I'm also going to mute CommonSpace editor Angela Haggerty, who randomly piled in on Kevin's behalf with a taunting tweet yesterday. Given the thuggish nature of Kevin's language on Sunday (which I can only presume she saw), it's pretty extraordinary that she would nail her colours so firmly to the mast in that way, and it once again undermines her innocent claims that CommonSpace always takes a position of studied neutrality on these disputes. This of course follows on from an unpleasant incident a few weeks ago when Angela spontaneously intervened in another dispute to brand myself and Andrew Morton "weird auld guys". Enough is enough as far as I'm concerned. I'd have been more than happy to debate with her seriously and constructively on tactical voting, radical feminism, or any other subject she wants. But she clearly considers it beneath her dignity to respectfully discuss anything with the likes of me, and has instead put Scot Goes Pop in the "Wings box" which is the equivalent of dirt to be crushed beneath her shoe.

That's fine. Kevin and Angela evidently feel there is no pro-indy alternative media worth a damn beyond the "important" and "vital" confines of Bella and CommonSpace, but a good number of us beg to differ. We've got our own path to follow, and if others have decided not to show basic respect towards us or solidarity with us, that's regrettable, but it's not something we can control. Hopefully muting them will at least allow for a degree of peaceful co-existence, which seems to be the most that can be hoped for at this stage.

I agree both with what you have said, James, and with anonymous above. The narcissistic tendencies of Williamson, Small and some others are seriously damaging our hopes for independence.

This doesn't mean that all radical left pro independence people should be considered the same. There are those who realise that independence is a precondition, a necessary first step after which their goals for change can be pursued.

Let us hope that as many as possible see the light on this and get themselves fully behind the broad Yes movement, without caveats, carping and cavilling.

I'm not a member of the SNP, but it is clear that the resources of that party must form the largest part of the independence movement, and that once independence is gained all can fight their corner for political direction.

Are you sure they arent plants from the Other side or paid off to gum up the pro Indy folks? Or perhaps their are mental issues. Glen Beck , a prominent FOX news ranter used to do this stuff.turns out he finally got treatment and has apologized to those he mistreated. I mean, being wrong about tactical voting is a bit embarrassing, especially after you explained it so clearly , but it WAS complicated and a tad counter intuitive. James and I and others have been wrong!!! He should just pull up his tighty whiteys and admit it and move on.

Interesting you mention Bateman as his "podcasts" have basically turned into "Groundhog Day" since Haggerty got fully involved. Was a fair bit more "diverse" before that happened IMHO.

By that I mean its the same people time & time again saying the same things time & time again.

Bateman himself seems to have (finally) worked out that the BBC is in fact not just biased but is state propaganda. I dunno whether that'll last - I suspect not.

None of these people - Haggerty, Boyd, Williamson etc would be of any interest were it not for one newspaper groups papers (Sunday Herald/National). The fact that the daily Herald is yoon central is obviously just one of those weird things us "auld guys" notice & wonder about.

Also I'd love to know who "bailed out Bella" as he who pays the piper etc....

Very well said James. I applaud your decision and hope that it will bring you some much needed peace. Since I rely on your reasoned explanations and explorations of the polls and related issues to understand them much better, I'd much rather you spent your energy on continuing to deliver your excellent posts rather than on defending yourself against such pointless, narcissistic attacks.

I must admit I found the whole tactical voting issue and its possible outcome quite confusing until I read your very measured posts on the issue. Having followed this throughout, I concluded that you were entirely right about the possible effects of a split vote. To be honest, that's why I find Williamson's behaviour bewildering. You looked at the data, ran the numbers and gave your opinion on possible and likely scenarios. IMHO, whether you did or did not personally like any of the parties on offer played very little role in your interpretations (after all, no matter how much one might hate mice, bias is also entirely irrelevant when concluding that an elefant can carry more weight).

Judging from this latest rant and its aftermath as shown in his comments here and on Twitter, he seems to be the the type of person for whom being right (and being seen to be right) is more important than working across the independence movement to achieve our common goal. Is it possible he simply could not stand to be proven wrong by the election outcome? That he had been casting around wildly for any explanation that could vindicate him, blinding him to how obvious (and desperate) this might seem to others? How else could he possibly misinterpret Prof Curtice's words like that?

If he believes the articles in the MSM on this issue - outlets that he knows are not only anti-SNP, but above all anti-independence - how can he possibly call himself an independent progressive media dude/outlet and take the MSM stance on it without questioning it? That such articles may aim to sow further discord amongst the various independence groups seems not to have occurred - or matter - to him at all. Not as long as they feed his obvious anti-SNP and pro-anyone else bias.

Very sad, really. I quite liked Bella until they decided that the power of the SNP needed to be curbed and went for the split vote with a vengeance. That is the obvious goal, is it not?

It wasn't easy for me to overcome my dislike of the SNP either (the nationalist angle troubled me as much as their erstwhile neo-liberal policies), but I have accepted they are our best chance for independence and am happy to support them until that goal is achieved.

Who governs Scotland after independence is a completely different issue, but until then I wish people like Williamson could accept that trying to sabotage the SNP will sabotage the struggle for independence.

I like a poster above gave up on Bella and CS after wheesht for Indy then the over the top pushing of RISE. After Indy ref I joined the SNP as the only protest left aftr 50 odd years avoiding membership of any party. After Indy I will slink back off into the shadows but for now will do whatever I can to get Scotland out of the UK. In my view Bella CS are not helping and should take some of their own advice and wheesht while we go for Indy.

Good to see you fash are falling out over your Nat si cause. You need to hold a referendum to leave the Union. So whits up wie ye just call it. If you are too thick to realise that then whats your purpose?

This is so petty. Both sides. We are on the same side and of course we should have disagreements about policy and direction or whatnot, but I am an SNP member and the attitude from some towards fellow independence friends is quite erratic.

We are NEVER going to win a referendum, and there will be soon. Just look at the mess of Brexit, by petty and it is petty pointless point scoring.

We will have to come together again in a very short while, and whilst robust discussion should be encouraged by calling fellow independence supporters "indy buts" makes us look ridiculous and divided when it comes to the big cause.

That's a fine ideal, but it has its limitations for as long as there are some parts of the pro-indy alternative media that seem to be literally committed to the eradication of other parts of the pro-indy alternative media. Look at the attitude of some parts of the radical left towards Wings, for example. As I said in the blogpost, peaceful co-existence may in some cases be a more realistic goal than 'coming together'.

I am pleased to say that the right wing fash Jock Nat si is somewhat scunnered about the constant losses the Nat sis suffered due to democracy...Now you are running out of time.... Go for the referendum and be trashed lying scumbag. Up yer lederhosen.

I read on quite a few sites that many commentators I respect are sick and tired of the posturing of Bella and Common Space. Like others I have donated to both, but will not do so again. Nor will I visit their sites.

If Kevin and others had an ounce of nous they would take note, but I suspect their egos get in the way.

My mrs scolded me for not knowing what the word nous meant. But I am only working class and she hails from Paisley. What I do know is Scotland needs to hold a referendum to leave the Union. So if the Nat sis had an ounce of nounce they would call it. Yesterday. If brexit works and the economy is stable you Nat sis are fooked.

Nobody predicted a tory split on the white paper vote shit for brains. Just that the tory part IS irrevocably split along kipper tory lines. An obvious truth which only a Daily Mail simpleton like yourself denies.

U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May faces a battle with pro-European lawmakers in her Conservative Party after they grudgingly backed her plan to trigger Brexit negotiations by the end of March in its first test in Parliament.

“The battle’s only just started,” said former Chancellor of the Exchequer Kenneth Clarke, the one Conservative who said he’d oppose the bill. “We’ve been in a very unreal, silly world since the rather startling result of the referendum. We’re on a voyage of discovery now with a sketchy outline of the negotiating position.”

Under May’s plan, Parliament will have to decide on a series of issues that will “completely divide” political friends and the wider country, former Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne told lawmakers before the vote in London. Her government will have to grapple with controversies over setting migration limits, state support for farms and businesses and free trade policies, he said.

“I will be in those fights in the couple of years ahead,” Osborne, who campaigned to stay in the EU, told lawmakers.

May didn’t want to give Parliament a say on triggering Article 50 of the EU’s Lisbon treaty, formally launching Britain on the path out of the EU.

Alleged terrorist Alexandre Bissonnette, 27, supports far-right movements THE MAN CHARGED WITH MASSACRING six people and five further counts of attempted murder at a Quebec mosque in Canada is a supporter of far-right movements and the politics of new US President Donald Trump, according to classmates and activists who knew him.

Alexandre Bissonnette, 27, is charged with the shooting that occurred on Sunday 29 January - in a terrorist attack on the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City.

The attack follows concern of the threat of far-right extremism of the likes prominent in the killing of Jo Cox MP, the Anders Breivik attack in Norway, or the most recent shooting of an anti-fascist activist in Seattle.

Classmates and activists who knew Bissonnette said he was an active supporter of far-right movements, who have targeted Muslim communities.

Classmate Jean-Michel Allard Prus told Le Journal de Quebec that he had “right-wing political ideas, pro-Israel, anti-immigration. I had many debates with him about Trump,” he said. “He was obviously pro-Trump.”

Thousands of German police raid premises in Hessen looking for Islamic terrorists that Merkel let into Germany. Trump is not letting them in just to chase after them. Clever man is Trump. Jock Nat sis are a danger to the Scottish people.

England would insist on a hard border if Scotland has policies that differ from them. That is not unusual. If the Nat sis after independence think they can come and go at their leisure into a foreign country then franky their heads are up their arse. And they should be honest about that with the Scittish people.

Alleged terrorist Alexandre Bissonnette, 27, supports far-right movements THE MAN CHARGED WITH MASSACRING six people and five further counts of attempted murder at a Quebec mosque in Canada is a supporter of far-right movements and the politics of new US President Donald Trump, according to classmates and activists who knew him.

Alexandre Bissonnette, 27, is charged with the shooting that occurred on Sunday 29 January - in a terrorist attack on the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City.

The attack follows concern of the threat of far-right extremism of the likes prominent in the killing of Jo Cox MP, the Anders Breivik attack in Norway, or the most recent shooting of an anti-fascist activist in Seattle.

Classmates and activists who knew Bissonnette said he was an active supporter of far-right movements, who have targeted Muslim communities.

Classmate Jean-Michel Allard Prus told Le Journal de Quebec that he had “right-wing political ideas, pro-Israel, anti-immigration. I had many debates with him about Trump,” he said. “He was obviously pro-Trump.”

Lesley Riddoch is apparantly English lived in Belfast and went to a posh school in Scotland. So that is why she is so articulate... But never convinced the majority of Scots to leave the Union... Wonder if she has an axe to grind against the British.... Need tae get oan that twitter thingy... and engage with the fash.

The suspect in the deadly attack on a Quebec City mosque was known in the city’s activist circles as a right-wing troll who frequently took anti-foreigner and anti-feminist positions and stood up for U.S. President Donald Trump.

Alexandre Bissonnette, 27, a student at Laval University who lived on a quiet crescent in the Cap-Rouge suburb of Quebec City, faces six counts of first-degree murder for a shooting that killed six people and wounded 19 others. Police initially arrested a person they considered a second suspect but they later backtracked, saying he was a witness.

Mr. Bissonnette’s online profile and school friendships revealed little interest in extremist politics until last March when French nationalist leader Marine Le Pen visited Quebec City and inspired Mr. Bissonnette to vocal extreme online activism, according to people who clashed with him.'

For what it is worth James, I've never visited Bella or Common Space since the very early days of 2014 but I've rarely let a day go by that I haven't visited this site or Wings. Everything I know about polling I learned from you. Keep up the great work.

Michael Fallon states that there is no mandate for a new referendum becasue the SNP lost seats in the election. WALOFS it may be but we can thank K Williamson and the 2nd vote green/rise/solidarity mentalcases for giving him the excuse.

Once brexit has happened and I assume the Nat sis will not call a referendum because the Nat si MP'S at Westminster are enjoying the fruits and trolling Clapham Common we need to halve the MSP'S at Holyrood. A great saving to the taxpayer and expended wind. Then the House of Lords needs gutted.

Rumour from the Red Lion bozzer in Whitehall where all Jock Nat sis have congregated tae think again. They have voted in principle to resign and come hame tae Scotland forfeiting their salaries for the sake of Scotland. Followed by loud laughter and cries of who is next on the bell.

You have made the correct judgment call James. Scotland's alt-left theocracy - McAlpine, Haggerty, Small etc - enabled by Newsquest and given old skool patronage by McWhirter and McKenna. If I hear one of these clowns use the word 'radical' again I'm going to drown all my social media churning mobile tech in a boiling vat of cool aid.